Katzilla MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses the data source ('Federal Reserve Economic Data'), update frequency ('updates daily'), and detailed return structure ('Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation'), which are not captured in annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential details like source, update frequency, and return structure in two efficient sentences with zero wasted words, making it highly readable and informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete: it covers purpose, source, behavior, and output details without needing to explain return values, which are handled by the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'query' and 'limit' parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the verb ('Search for'), resource ('economic data series in the FRED database'), and scope ('by keyword'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the FRED database context, which is unique among economic tools like 'economic__bea-gdp' or 'economic__bls-series'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Search for economic data series in the FRED database by keyword'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'economic__fred-series' for retrieving specific series details.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.